This is a discussion on Interesting Rule Dilemma within the online poker forums, in the General Poker section; The following hand happened to a friend of mine in a 2-7 satellite for the $10K 2-7 event at this past summers’ WSOP. I’d like

The following hand happened to a friend of mine in a 2-7 satellite for the $10K 2-7 event at this past summers’ WSOP. I’d like to see what the community has to say on this subject – myself and all of our poker friends and have weighed in – but this is a curious one.

The details of bet sizes and stacks are not available, but are also not very prudent.

My friend, Sam, is on the draw with 2345kr. His opponent drew 3 cards, naturally, he drew a single card since he was drawing to the nuts.

Sam, hadn’t even looked at his 5th card, it was still face down on table, when his opponent showed him 2 black Jacks and said “Can you beat Jacks?” in a half-serious way. Sam replied, “Ummmm – yeah” and watched his opponent turn all 5 of his cards face down and throw them at the muck pile.

Just for grins, Sam looked at his 5th card, found a 6 and said “Wow – well, I guess I couldn’t beat Jacks!” He turned his hand face-up while throwing them towards the muck pile as well. His opponent immediately scrambled and tried to pull his hand back and table it.

The first floor man came over and ruled that his opponents’ cards were “easily identifiable” from the muck pile. The second floor ruled the same way. Finally, the TD was called over (the satellite clock was even paused) who subsequently ruled the same way; the Jacks win the pot.

Now, as I’ve told Sam many times, this all could have been avoided if he didn’t even look at his 5th card – or, even if he did, has just mucked them face down. However, in light of the table talk, it’s easy to see why he flipped them over – I may have done the same thing.

I am of the opinion that this was the wrong ruling – in fact so wrong that it’s almost unbelievable.

That said, there may be some logic to the ruling based on TDA rules:

Rule 13: Tabling Cards & Killing Winning Hand

A: Proper tabling is both 1) turning all cards face up on the table and 2) allowing the dealer and players to read the hand clearly. “All cards” means both hole cards in hold’em, all 4 hole cards in Omaha, all 7 cards in 7-stud, etc.

B: At showdown a player must protect his hand while waiting for it to be read (See also Rule 60). If a player does not fully table his cards, then mucks thinking he has won, he does so at his risk. If the cards are not 100% identifiable and the TD rules the hand was not clearly read, the player has no claim to the pot. The TDs decision on whether a hand was sufficiently tabled is final.

C: Dealers cannot kill a hand that was properly tabled and obviously the winner.

Based on item B – the mucking player could still potentially, win the hand, then again, he didn’t muck “thinking he had won”, but rather thought he had lost – plus, he didn’t table his hand – in fact, he actually violated a rule by showing cards with action pending. However, there is also:

Rule -14: Live Cards at Showdown

Discarding non-tabled cards face down does not automatically kill them; a player may change his mind and table his cards if they remain 100% identifiable. Cards are killed by the dealer when pushed into the muck.

To support my side of the argument, I can’t find much in the TDA rule book – which is kind of the problem, it seems common sense has escaped the TDA. Things would have been different if the dealer had partially mucked the hand, or some other similar type scenario, but this player intentionally mucked his hand and then tried to pull it back, same as if he had said “Fold – oh no, wait, I call!”

It’s like when I play poker with my nieces at nephews every Christmas. They routinely discard a card, and then pull it back after the draw, in addition to various other gaffs. It’s funny in that context and I have a good time every Christmas, but in a WSOP $1K satellite – yikes!

It appears it was the correct ruling, as much as it pains me to admit it – but, even still that doesn’t make it right. Does anyone have any thoughts on this one? How can you intentionally muck, with cards actually touching the muck pile, and still win the pot after your opponent shows a hand you can beat, but didn’t think you could beat when it was your turn to act?

Personally, I think the TDA bureaucracy has run amuck - That’s not how we play poker – is it?

Im on my phone so I cant pull the rule to quote but the issue lies with your friend saying he could beat the jacks which is false information...this is why he was able to pull his cards back. Ill post more when I get to my computet

And I am guessing this is at Wsop which does not use TDA rulez

#3

23rd July 2016, 8:53 PM

detroitjunkie [774]

Poker at: was Titan

Game: Baduecy

ok, home now and on computer

there are several rules that come into play here

upon mucking this rule applies:
2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

now, there still may be more rules at play here but we do not have the information:
1. If one of the players were all in, then both hands MUST be tabled no matter what happens, every effort must be made to retrieve the mucked hand.
2. If opponent, when showing the jacks, also showed his other 3 cards, then he must win. In no way can a dealer muck an obvious winning tabled hand, and his hand was tabled, just early (maybe) which is insignificant.

I am not sure in the way you described it that opponent showed with action pending, what was the action that was pending?

In my opinion this was the correct ruling and is how I would rule it in my poker room: cards are clearly identifiable, they were shown, and player was given improper information, and a player may have been all in. Sorry this is not what you want to hear...its the fairest thing to do and is best interest of the game.

Your buddy made a HUGE mistake by saying anything, since a new rule in 2016 the WSOP no longer demands a hand to be shown to win a pot if it is the only live hand remaining, he should have just said nothing and taken the pot (but it is an angle by giving wrong information, which if I was him I would have said I didnt win and let the guy have the pot, but I am an honest player because I am also a floor).

Your buddy could also have been penalized for this.

#4

24th July 2016, 5:46 PM

ssbn743 [387]

Quote:

Originally Posted by detroitjunkie

ok, home now and on computer

there are several rules that come into play here

upon mucking this rule applies:
2. Cards thrown into the muck may be ruled dead. However, a hand that is clearly identifiable may be retrieved and ruled live at management’s discretion if doing so is in the best interest of the game. An extra effort should be made to rule a hand retrievable if it was folded as a result of incorrect information given to the player.

now, there still may be more rules at play here but we do not have the information:

1. If one of the players were all in, then both hands MUST be tabled no matter what happens, every effort must be made to retrieve the mucked hand.
2. If opponent, when showing the jacks, also showed his other 3 cards, then he must win. In no way can a dealer muck an obvious winning tabled hand, and his hand was tabled, just early (maybe) which is insignificant.

I am not sure in the way you described it that opponent showed with action pending, what was the action that was pending?

In my opinion this was the correct ruling and is how I would rule it in my poker room: cards are clearly identifiable, they were shown, and player was given improper information, and a player may have been all in. Sorry this is not what you want to hear...its the fairest thing to do and is best interest of the game.

Your buddy made a HUGE mistake by saying anything, since a new rule in 2016 the WSOP no longer demands a hand to be shown to win a pot if it is the only live hand remaining, he should have just said nothing and taken the pot (but it is an angle by giving wrong information, which if I was him I would have said I didnt win and let the guy have the pot, but I am an honest player because I am also a floor).

Your buddy could also have been penalized for this.

I’m not completely disagreeing with the ruling, I guess, but I think there are a lot of issues with this ruling and the spirt and intent of poker rules.

Also, after re-reading my post, I didn’t do the best job of describing the situation. 2 players drew cards and the player with Jacks was first to act (check/bet). He asked the question, “Can you beat Jacks” – shrugged his shoulders after Sam’s “Ummm…yeah!” response and mucked his hand – out of turn.Yes, Sam was guilty of even speaking, I know. Nonetheless, he was the only player left with cards. Now maybe he did give false information – but not really, we has drawing to the stone cold nuts, and hadn’t even looked at his complete hand – information that was available and should have been obvious to his opponent. His opponent showed the Jacks knowing he was beat based solely on the fact that Sam drew a single card – the table talk was just a circus act.

So, yes, there are several issues at play here – but he intentionally mucked his hand, out of turn with action pending, no less, then wanted it back. “I fold……on no….wait, I can beat a straight, I call!” Whatever loophole there is in poker rule books, that’s wrong; right?

#5

24th July 2016, 9:07 PM

detroitjunkie [774]

Poker at: was Titan

Game: Baduecy

No, solely based on the fact that wrong information was given and that caused the muck - it is unfair, and is a major angle -and if you speak of intent of poker rules - this is why they exist, to stop this type (and all types) of angle to be played here, they are meant to protect those from the shady (even if it wasnt the intent, which here it was not, but that doesnt change anything), a lot poker rules are anti-angle and anti-collusion, the others are to make sure players are paying attention, which yes this person was not, so he could get a penalty for mucking early, but not a dead hand. No matter what your buddy thought he was drawing to, the fact remains he misinformed about his hand, essentially at showdown because he didnt make a bet (?). If your friend had bet (which you never said he did), or there was a draw to come, its a whole different story (you say he called - was there a bet after last draw?)

also opponent showed his hand - there is no way a dealer is allowed to award a pot to an obvious loser, no way, of course unless there was a bet

the rules are meant to make the game fair and honest, which the outcome here was, now it also makes the game need attentive players - however when people break the rules they do not lose pots unfairly, they get penalties, otherwise the newbies would never play live

now, even if there was a bet, a case can be made that your friend was angling, which could still result in the same outcome, depends on the floor, and especially if your friend had done this action before (doesnt sound like it though) in the same tourney and was warned, though in this case your friend probably would have been removed from the tourney altogether.

tricky situation - if there was a bet I would award pot to your friend (if this was his first infraction) and then issue him a penalty, if not then the other guy gets the pot

As soon as the guy showed the jacks I would have just bet without saying anything and watch him fold, this would have not been an angle. Expensive lesson. What was the outcome, did either of these players win the sat? (I assume your friend did not)

#6

24th July 2016, 10:54 PM

ssbn743 [387]

re: Poker & Interesting Rule Dilemma

Hmmm – Interesting

Quote:

Originally Posted by detroitjunkie

No, solely based on the fact that wrong information was given and that caused the muck - it is unfair, and is a major angle -and if you speak of intent of poker rules - this is why they exist, to stop this type (and all types) of angle to be played here,

First, a pair of Jacks against a player that drew one card is an obvious, 99% of the time loser. So, he showed the Jacks in frustration and then “Yeah, I muck!” Now I understand what you’re saying – but does that mean that if Sam hadn’t said a single word, first to act mucks out of turn, Sam turns over his 5th card and says, “We’ll I thought I had you crushed but I guess not!” – Sam would be awarded the pot?

What if he had verbalized “Fold” and the same action ensued? Folding is technically not an option for him as he has to check or bet – so even with a verbal declaration; are we in the same place?

I just think that this is where common sense and floor discretion comes into play – false information or not, the guy folded – and he was the one that started the bad info chain, and broke a few rules himself, to begin with.

Frankly I think it’s far more of an angle, than anything Sam could have been up to, to show your hand and ask your opponent if it’s good or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by detroitjunkie

As soon as the guy showed the jacks I would have just bet without saying anything and watch him fold, this would have not been an angle. Expensive lesson. What was the outcome, did either of these players win the sat? (I assume your friend did not)

Yeah, I would have just mucked them face down myself – I probably would have never even looked at my 5th card. There are a few things Sam could have done differently, but…

Neither one cashed this satty – Sam did last year, did fairly well, in the $10K, for a while at least, and then Danny Negreanu got seated to his left – turns out Danny is better (especially at Kansas low) than my buddy Sam!

#7

24th July 2016, 11:53 PM

detroitjunkie [774]

Poker at: was Titan

Game: Baduecy

Its a tuff call but acting out of turn and similar rule violations do not...and should not...constitute not winning when you have best hand. These rules are in place as an in-between ruling of sorts so as to not sevearly penelize someone because it could just be a mistake...but penalties like sitting out for set number of hands or minutes need to happen if it wasnt an honest mistake...but a penalty can never be a dead hand (in a tourney) for something other than an illegal hand (not enough or too many cards or a joker) due to possible honest mistakes

Now since Sam didnt claim any action the hand immediatly goes to showdown and since the jacks were shown they cant lose...unless that was only two he showed. But still since he waived any action that is where the line is thin but should go in favor of the true winner whenever possible all because he said something...if he says nothing then it gets real interesting